The Sun. — London, England, 1864-07-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the woolsack at the usual hour. . _ Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE said he would postpone putting the question with reference to the corre spondence published in the Morning Post until next week. THE ATROCITIES BY THE PAITSSIANS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in pursuance of a notice which he had given previously to the noble earl the Secre tary of Foreign Affairs, called attention to the following telegram, viz : " SONDERBURG, July I.—At the partial clearance of the battle-field, yesterday, 400 Swedish velunteers were dis covered, to whom no quarter was given." Which in plain terms meant that 400 wounded men, left in a helpless state on the field of battle, were butchered in cold blood by the Prussian soldiery. He wished to know if her Majesty's Government had received any information which would enable him to speak to the truth of the statement. He believed it was true, from what he had heard of other acts of cruelty perpetrated by the Prussians. Earl RUSSELL said he had no information respe-cting the matter, but he would make inquiry into the circum stances and communicate with the noble earl. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. In roply to L )rd URANWOILTH, Lord BROUGHAM said he did not intend proceeding further with his bill on this subject this session. THIRD READINGS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Dundee Churches and Hospitals, Rammell's Patent, Wal ford and Edgware Junction Railway, Great Northern Railway (Barnet Branch), London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (No, 1), Llanelly Harbour Improvement, Clyde Navigation, Caledonian Railway, Macclesfield, Bollington, and Marple Railway, and Scottish Central Railway. FACILITIES FOR DIVINE SERVICE IN COLLE- GIATE SCHOOLS. This bill passed through committee. In committee on the Publichouses Bill, Lord EGERTON of TATTON moved the omission of the words giving power to town councils to adopt the pro visions of the Act If they think fit. Lord GRANVILLE opposed the amendment, and on a division it was negatived by a majority of seven, the num bers being— for the amendment, 21; against, 31. Their lordships adjourned at twenty minutes to seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS. --Last Evening. ti The SPZAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The London Docks, St. Katherine Dock, and Victoria (London) Dock Amalgamation Bill was read a third time and passed. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading : —Ardrossan Harbour—Helston and Penryn Junc tion Railway—and Wandsworth Bridge. PAYMENT OF RATES BY OFFICERS. Colonel NORTH asked the Under Secretary to the Trea sury if any arrangement had yet been arrived at between the Treasury and the War Department relative to the pay• went of rates by officers in the army for houses occupied by them in the performance of their public duties F Mr PEEL said that the committee appointed on the subject were still considering the question sub judice. THE REGIUM DONUSI. Sir H. BRUCE asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government would, in accordance Nith the re quest of a numerously signed memorial, increase the grant commonly called " Regium Donum" to the Presbyterian Church in Inland ? Mr PEEL said it was not considered advisable to recom mend an increase of the grant. POLICE-CONSTABLE 244 B. Mr WHALLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether police-constable 244 B, as to whom Mr Arnold, the magistrate at Westminster Police court, publicly stated on two several occasions in the month of May last, that he could not believe him on his oath, or to that effect, is still continued in the force. Sir G. GREY said that no representation on the subject had been made by Mr Arnold to the Home Office. GOVERNMENT ORDNANCE. Sir J. HAY asked the Under Secretary of State for War to lay upon the table of the house a return showing the number of guns in store and in use of such a nature as the late experiments show can be effectually used against armour-clad ships of the Warrior class ; a n d asked what steps Government were taking to provide a sufficient supply of guns for the armament of our forts and fleets, of such a nature as late experiments show can be effectually used against armour-clad ships and forts, specifying as follows :—the calibre of gun ; whether rifled or smooth• bore; the construction of gun; cast-iron, coil, steel, or wrought-iron ; the weight of gun ; the length of bore; the weight of shot and shell; and, the service charge of powler. The Marquis of HART IN GI ON said that such details as were asked for by the hon. baronet could not advisably be subwitted to public inspection. Efforts were being made to rive 2 an adr (plate supply of rifled guns to the service. THE RUMOURS 1N REFERENCE TO ALSEN. Ire reply to Lord R. MONTAGU, Mr LAYARD said that no official information on the subject had been received by the Government on this sul , jcct. THE DANO-GERMAN QUESTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE, Mr COBDEN, who on rising was greeted with loud cheers, said—Mr Speaker : W e are indebted to the two hon. gentlemen who have moved amendments for having en larged the subject of our deliberations. The hon. member for Bridgewater has proposed at a future time to move an amendment for the approval of this house of the course her Majesty's Government has taken in the affairs of Denmark. That is an amendment which, though not endorsing the steps or proceedings by which we arrived at the result, the house is pretty generally inclined to endorse. The hon. member for Warwickshire has proposed an amendment that this country shall guarantee to Denmark the disputed possessions of Schleswig and Holstein, left in dispute after the Conference, thus raising the issue aye or no whether this country shall adopt a policy of intervention and war in the case of Denmark. Mr NEWDEGATE—My proposal was that the pro posal of the neutral Powers in the Conference be sup ported by this house. Mr COBDEN—J apprehend the hen. gentleman means to support that policy by war. That is all I meant to infer. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman has not got up to con tradict me. The right lion, gentleman who brought forward this motion has not confined himself to a declaration of fact, or a statement of judgment of this house upon the conduct of Government, which I think he could have wisely done ; but he has rather sought to lead us into what I would call the region of prophecy, fur he proposed for our assent a declaration that the couilse of policy which the Government has pursued has had the effect of lowering us in the councils of nations, and has diminished securities of peace. Now, sir, whether we have been lowered, or are to he lowered, in the councils of nations, much depends upon our own future conduct. (Hear, hear) For the present moment I am constrained to admit that as far as the conduct of our Foreign Office is concerned, we do not stand in a satisfactory position. (Opposition cheers.) In regard to the declaration that the course that has been taken will have the effect of diminishing the securities for peace, I join issue distinctly with the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) lam of opinion that what has happened—the exposure we have had of the utter futi• lity of our foreign policy—the complete break down of our diplomacy—(hear, hear)—will have the effect of transferring these ques'ions for evermpre from the dark recesses of the Foreign Office to the publicity of this house, which will afford us a better guarantee for peace than we have ever had. (Hear, hear.) But while I say that Ido not wish it t o b e understood that I come here to endorse:or excuse the coarse the Foreign Office has taken in the late negotiations—for I consider it to have been deplorable and most unsatisfactory do no t speak with censure or harshness of any attempt by the Government to promote peace. I do not even quarrel with them for hawking about in every capital of Europe their importunities for peace, but what has struck ma in reading these volumineus despatches is the great want of sagacity on the part of our Foreign Minister, (Hear, hear.) It is the want of knowledge and appreciation of the motives and forces whiten guide and control the actions of foreign nation-, and which appear to me to be so transparent that even a child itself might perceive them. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances it is that the head of the Foreign Office has I think undoubtedly exposed himself to rejections, to rebuffs, and I might say, as far as that department is concerned, to humiliation in all parts of the world. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, so much for the lineation, which lies very much between the. f rant bench on the.other side and the front bench on this side of the house; bat there is a question much beyond that which interests aspirants fir power and office, and if there was not I should cake no p art in this discussion. N o w, Sir, there arises out of this t p h o e li a e dditio ,c i s la e i hy question ofis principle as affecting our foreign y, r question of Denmark and Germany these two iss a n t e la s e , which i have tormented us so long , brought be fore ns_nthis u m ., t h e of the dynastic , secr et, end irresponsible en gage ments ,(1 of oar Foreign Office; and we hav e al so ques tion which is not ancient but new—the questi on of our foreign policy at this time--I mean the questi on o f nation. s ilty, By nationaiity 1 mean the instinct which is now so powerful, leading communities to seek to live together be e;,use they are of the same race, language, and religion. Now, Sir, what is this treaty of 1b.5 of which we have heard so much, and which forms the positive basis of these dis cussions ? Eight gentlemen met t tgether in London, at that celebrated round table, to decide the destinies of a million of people who were never con sulted upon the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) Now, let us take note of this. It is the last p i ge in a long history of diplornE.tic action. It cannot be repeated again. Every man there will never again join in a successful conference-1 me an a conference meeting together to dispose of a population whose interests and wishes they do not take into account. There never will be another held in Europe, probably, iu the history of the world, Now, let it be borne in mind it is upon the policy of secret irrespons ible diplomacy and the question of nationalities that cur de bate t ur ns. We ail know what followed the attempt to force a papulation to live in conditions which were not acceptable to them. Ti Le Government of Denmark itself is now ad mitted on all hands not merely to have failed ih its obliga tions, but fi died in its engagements. in the, • tment of the Schleswi i e-Hols ein population, which 'ern s u t ?innately confined to t. ie rule of that dynasty by treaty. Io which we are referring.. The Danes troubled ae g e haeese, d the peopl e of Schleswig ,-Holestin in a way ',let et peculiarly painful, and which always affee e ta us most s, nsitively as a people—l '.neap they interfer,ed with the use of their lan guage. IJenmark trouble' the Schleswig-Holstein popula tion with functionaries repeaking the Danish language ; they sought to constrain &Air youth to learn the Danish lan guage when it was ' A la their wish to do so. They sought to gain advantage fnr their own university, against the wishes of the F,chlefe e ng-Holstein people, Well, they tried again precise s ly e7ne same thing which had been so unsuccessful in tb case of Holland, when Holland tried to force her lan gunge on the people of Belgium. The consequence was a great grievance —and the German people, sympathising with people of their own race in Schleswig-Holstein, took up the cry that was raised in these provinces. Is there a public man who has taken part in public affairs for years past who hes not been flooded with the grievances of the Schleswig-Holstein population ; I declare I could measure those which have reached me almost by cubic yard. I am afraid 1 have not been a very diligent reader of them ; but we must not forget that at the bottom of this question there lies a grievance, and there lies a grievance of a small popu lation against a powerful one. This interest of the Germans in the Schleswig-Holstein question continued for 10 or 12 years. )' e t length it culminated in a state of violent utter ances, that you may almost say the Government of Ger many, fearing there might be a revolutionary movement in Germany in favour of the Schleswig-Holstein population, summoned the Diet together, with the view of taking the matter into their own hands. The Diet is a slow body, with a very imperfect organisation, and before they could act the ewe great Powers of Austria and Prussia interfered in this affair between the Schleswig-Holstein people and the Ger man people, and invaded that country, for they had their standing armies--which are the standing evils, you may say, of Enrolee at this time. (Hear, hear.) Now do not let us forget, when we arrive at this point, that because the absolute Governments of Austria and Prussia entered into conteen they did not affect the original merits of the question. It is difficult for us to conceive any action taken for a cause of libeety or nationality of which Austria or Prussia are the cb impious ; our very gorge rises at the idea of the Austrian Government taking an army of Hungarian, Croatian,Bohe rnian, and perhaps Italian soldiers into Schleswig-Holstein, to fight the battles of nationality, (Hear.) These two Govern ments have been playing the demagogues to the German people ; there is noneso subservient to the passion of the people as your sceptred demagogues, I am noc going to trouble the house with a single quotation from our blue-books, and I hope to propitiate the favour of my and ence by removing all dread of that infliction; but in order to show the change which has taken place in the progress of society in Europe, in order to show to what a degree the democratic principle, or, if that term is offensive, popular sovereignty in Europe, has progressed during the last 30 or 40 years, allow me to read, in connection with their invasion of Schleswig-Hol stein, to do the behests of the German people, an extract from a manifesto to the sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, dated Layback, May 12, 1821—that was the time of the Holy Alliance. It says :—" Useful or necessary changes in legislation, and in the administration of States, ought only to emanate from the free will, and the intelligent and well-weighed convictions of those whom God has ren dered responsible for power. All that deviates from this line necessarily tends to disorder, commotion, and evils far more unsufferable than those which it was intended to remedy." Penetrated with this eternal truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to say it with frankness and vigour. They declare that "in respecting the rights and independence of all legi• • timate Powers, they regard as legally null, and as disavowed bythe principles which constitute the public right of Europe all pretended reforms operated by revolt and open hosti• lity." That was the doctrine of the absolute sovereigns in 1821. Now we are told, not only upon the authority of our own representatives, but upon the authority of the repre sentatives of Austria and Prussia themselves, that they are constrained in the course they are now following by the ne cessity they are under—the pressure, to use the term of the Foreign Secretary, they are under from the German popu lations. Now, I mention this most significant and pregnant fact because it shows how completely the state of Europe has changed. It shows how we need be under no apprehen sion, in future, of holy alliances of sovereigns. There may be holy alliances of the people, though that does not seem very likely yet. Now I come to our own course in those proceedings. What were we to do when these two great military Powers went into Schleswig Holstein ? IVere we right in offering our mediation ? I think there can be no office more dignified, as there ought to be no office more safe than that of a mediator. (Hear.) If there be a blessing at tending on any one, it is, as we are told, on the peacemaker or the attempted peacemaker. Now, what I find in this coun try's policy—whether advocated by one side or the other— what has been unfortunately the tendency of this country is this—that when we set up fur the office of mediator, we seem never to know the line which separates the mediator from the partisan. No sooner have we entered into this Schles wig Holstein question, simply with a view of attempting to keep the peace, than parties here, both speakers and public writers, instantly take up the attitude of partisans, and, forming their own views by their own counsel, they are for transferring themselves into the attitude of belligerents. Nothing could be more unfortunate for the cause of peace than that the principle should be recognised that, when you attempt to serve as mediator, it involves the risk of being dragged into the position of a principal. Why, even in the old days of duelling, except in the most barbarous times of the Ireland of the past century, it was considered rather sharp practice, because a gentleman went out as a second, that he was obliged to take part as principal with the other second. (Laughter.) Now, lam going to say what those who speak for mere popularity would not care to say, viz., that the great fault we commit in these things always is that we allow ourselves to be betrayed into something like menace without duly measuring the power we had to carry out our menace. (Opposition cheers.) There is a policy of menace in this country. (Hear.) It is familiar to all who read certain journals and who hear certain questions put in this house by those who talk about where our fleets are, and those who in another house—or in another place—(laughter) —who ought to know better, and whose voices ought to be heard in other accents than those of incendiaries—(hear, hear)—those who talk about sending out our fleets. Now, I intend to treat this question in the way in which other countries treat it, for we should be the merest Chinese in the world if we did not look the matter fairly in the face ourselves. Those who talk of our enter ing into these affairs in conflict, and settling them id a spirit of dictation, have they considered what our power is to carry out our will in any way on the continent of Europe ? No doubt for our own defence, in our own island home, our powers are, if I may say it without irreverence, all but omnipotent. All the world could not assail you with success in this country. (Rear, hear.) But when you talk of the power to coerce military nations on the Continent, your powers are very limited indeed. Send a fleet to the Baltic, was the utterance which I heard in another place. What would a fleet do in the Baltic ? (Hear, hear.) Blockade the Prussian ports. Well, tut railways had all but rendered blockades practically inopera tive, except in such an extraordinary case as that in America, where the blockading party also commands the internal communications of the country. But I must not forget to mention that we are liable to attack in that way. Recent experience has taught us that you cannot localise war by sea. We should be liable to retaliation on the ocean. What can we do in this case of the Prussian war ? Our war would be with the German people. Recollect what I told you, that the Austrian and Prussian Governments are mere demagogues doing the behests of the German people. They have an honest sympathy with the inhabitants of Schleswig and Holstein. They are actuated by, I believe, generous motives, and I dare say a very large portion of them are heartily ashamed of the champions who forced themselves into their service. But what could you do in a war with 40 millions of Germans to carry out your will with reference to this question ? lam speaking now in answer to the hon. member opposite (Mr Newdegate). What could you do to maintain that slice of land in Scleswig for the Danes ? You would have to fight the whole of the German people in a frenzy of excitement and thoroughly in earnest, imbued with convictions the growth of 10 or 12 years' constant pamphleteering and newspaper writing. You could attack Austria and dismember her from her outlying provinces; but do you think that the Germans would greatly grieve to see the extra-Teutonic limbs of Austria cut away? It would not affect the German population. The grievance to wards you would be with the German race. I put it to both sides of this house, is it not high time that there was some mode by which the Government should know the wish of this house upon this and kindred questions? Be cause we do not know to what extent this very war which is now raging may extend. It may be half over Europe, and that is the question which we have to ask ourselves, and the only point I feel any interest in debating on this occasion, because you know I have said for two years past that, whe ther the present noble lord is in office or whether Lord Derby is, is a matter to which I attach no importance whatever. I think you (to the Opposition) are very wrong in attempting t o remove the noble lord, as he does your work better than Len' Derby would. (Laughter and cheers.) He throws a• -relit on reform. ( Hear. ) He derides the 220 gentle men who are pledged to vote . for the ballot, and, as the gallant officer (Gen. Peel) said yesterday, he spends more w ll .1:1 ; 1 :e t y, 0 , d a o n i die Li fe r iv 7 r o c r i e n e ( x ,ffi tr e a e v . ag i3 n e t s , id th es an al i w t e hi s s h , o lf u y ld ou al w lo i g h i- o v n e . him gen rill, n(thea th, and if, instead of killing hire, as the right y o u °Pare him th e pangs of dissolution, and allow hi m to die a natural dents, sp ea king of the Exchequer) said g lor efficially, I am confident that, when h e has d ea i 6 ",.; e dly demoralised his own party, he intends, when he makes his political will, to hand over office to you as residuary leg atees, (Loud laughter.) tNhoewFyreonuchsecealll Ptherefe'eltsirtutlantdicen4lt'and what our neighbours spective of party feeling, which h as long been dead in this house, to consider th e importance ant g w r a a n v t ity you, irre of these foreign questi ons. They will trouble you when you come into office. Recollect there are only t wo cl ass es of questions upon which Governments when itt office fall. The one is the class of foreign qu es ti ons, the other that ' of financial questions. (Murmurs.) You will not find a Government fall from any other cause. (A. voice --How about reform ?) Oh, no, they dont go out on reform. (Loud laughter.) It is only you who do that. (Renewed laughter.) Now, is it not worth our while to consider these questions, and, at the only time when we can draw serious attention to our foreign policy, to try to enunciate a principle for our better guid ance in future. What is the ground of our foreign policy. Why do we interfere in these affairs abroad ? There is not, I believe, one treaty binding us to go to war on the Conti nent. There was only one treaty in the settlement of Vienna, and that was a treaty entered into by England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in which they bound them selves solemnly, in theurame of the Holy Trinity, by force of arms, if necessary, to prevent for aver any member of the Bonaparte family from sitting on the throne of France. (A laugh.) lam not•aware of any other treaty. (An Hon. Member—Belgium,) Then Belgium is an exception. Then why do we trouble ourselves with these continental politics ? We have no interest there territorially. We gain nothing there by your diplomatic meddling. Our general excuse is —it is a phrase which is stereotyped in thedespatches of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary—that we have a policy founded on what is called the balance of power, which I never could understand, but I believe it is a figment which is supposed to have grown out of the settlement of Vienna, which I call the great unsettlement of Vienna. Can we, in the face of these growing popular interests, any longer base our foreign policy upon that treaty of Vienna ? We are not bound to do anything by force to maintain that treaty. All we are hound to do is not to violate its undertakings. What has that treaty done for Europe ? I hold in my hand a short extract from the writings of a great Italian, one of the noblest, most disinterested most accomplished, and bravest of the patriots of modern times, and who bore the heat and burden of the day—the Marquis Massimo d'Azeglio. Writing in 1847, he says—" I believe all the disturbances which have agitated Europe from 1815 to the present time, all the discontent and revolutions of those 32 years, and all the moral inquietude which more or less agitates society, have been caused by the unnatural and forced partition of Europe by the Congress of Vienna. Its measures for the establishment of peace and tranquillity in Europe were the germ of all the wars and revolutions which have since oc curred, because the only interests then cared for were those of dynasties, families, and privileged classes, without any consideration of national feeling, or the inevitable wants of that new state of society which the revolution has created." Nt w, if that was written in 1847, and if you have since had a period which convulsed all Europe, full of dynastic changes and fearful revolution, two years afterwards, is it not necessary that we should discard the idea of entering again into negotiations abroad, with a view of maintaining the balance of power as settled by the treaty of Vienna ? (Hear, hear.) We all have our pet projects for interference abroad. One party wishes us to interfere for Poland, another for Hungary, and another for Italy, while some would even have us go to America, and interfere in the terrible struggle now going on there. Now, if we were to take up a foreign policy for the redress of great wrongs, and if I were called upon to say what would be my pro ject, I should say that Venice has the first claim on this country, (Cheers.) Venice had for a thousand years a glorious existence. She was a commercial nation, with a career somewhat analogous to our own; and if her history were fairly written, and a comparison was made between her and other countries at the time she existed, she cer • tainly had the best title to existence of any country cn the Continent, and especially at our hands. And yet the sign and seal of England is attached to the treaty whieh assigned Venice to Austria, If there is one country which has more claims upon us than another, it is the country to which I have referred. But to undo the wrong we did to Venice we should have to fight against our own engage. ments and our own signature. Now where are we landed ? We have here a country requiring peace. Some people think it is very degrading and base that an Englishman should speak of his own country as requiring peace, and as being entitled to enjoy the blessings of peace; and if we allude to our enormous commercial and industrial engage ments as a reason why we should avoid these petty quarrels and disturbances, then we are told we are selfish and gro velling in our politics. But I say we were very wrong to take measures to extend our commerce:unless we et ere pre pared to use those prudential precautions which were calculated to keep our vast commercial and manufacturing operations from being troubled with unnecessary wars. You have in this country engagements of the most extensive and complicated kind. You have enlarged your operations to such an extent that you are now actually exporting three times as much as you did 25 years ago. Your commerce and manufactures have grown in a quarter of a century twice as much as they grew in a thousand years previously. Is not this a motive why we should take all reasonable pre cautions for avoiding these Continental quarrels ? And, therefore, I say I am justified in laying this statement be fore you, in the hope that, outside of this party conflict, something may corn e calculated to put us on a better foot ing with regard to our Continental relation. I have taken very little interest in the party question at issue. I think the greater question is the effect which this dilemma is to have on our policy for the future. I maintain that we must have a change in the relations of this country to our Foreign Office and to foreign countries. The present system of dip lomacy has broken down. (Hear, hear.) Our Foreign Office has lost its credit with foreign countries. (Opposition cheers.) From this time you cannot apprcach a foreign country on any question of foreign politics in which you will not be looked upon with a want of consideration, and indeed with mistrust. (Cheers.) And why ? Because foreign countries feel that while they are dealing with the Foreign-office the Foreign-office in fact had not the power. The power is here; and foreign Governments more than suspect that our Foreign Minister is often playing a game with them to suit the policy anu the prospects of the Government in this House. (Cheers.) Such being the case, I maintain that it behoves us to adopt a different policy, to let it be known what that policy is, and to make the Government feel it was necessary to act up to our views. I repeat, the present ay's tem cannot go on. It requires a change, not only in the interests of this country, but in the interests of our neigh bours. liay, it requires a change on far higher grounds, in the interests of peace, civilisation, and humanity. (Loud cheers.) Lord R. CECIL remarked upon the fact that, notwith standing the speech just delivered by Mr. Cobden, it was the intention of the hon. gentleman to give Ministers his material support, in that respect reversing the policy of the Government, who had been lavish of threats and menaces in behalf of Denmark, but whon the time arrived for giving her material aid withheld it and deserted their ally. One thing he readily granted. He believed that if Mr. Cobden had been Fore gn Secretary, instead of Earl Russell, this country would have occupied a position proud and noble compared with that it now filled. His complaint of the policy of the Government was that it was founded upon no definite principle, bat was oscillating, vague, and fluctu ating. Referring to the recent speech of Lord Palmerston, in which the noble viscount, casting aside all his previous threats against Germany and declarations in favour of the independence and integrity of Denmark, said that if Copenhagen were subjected to the horrors of an assault and the King were made prisoner of war, then the Government would "reconsider" what was to be done in the matter, the noble lord observed that a more melancholy exhibition had never been witnessed since the time when ancient Pistol swallowed his leek, buttered with the reflec tion that he did it for revenge. Henceforward we should be unable to persuade foreign powers that we were in ear nest; and this loss of dignity and honour was not a loss of a mere sentiment, but of actual power—a loss of power which we should have to buy back hereafter at the cost of the blood and treasure of England. With regard to the future, he agreed with General Peel and Mr Cobden, that if did not mean to fight we must not interfere, and that was the only question involved in the censure which the reso lution passed upon the Government. If the house could nut save Denmark at least it might rescue this country from the danger of again suffering similar dishonour by placing the resolution of Mr Disraeli on its journals. Mr. W. E. FORSTER observed that Lord Robert had not told the house what should have been the policy of the Government, and what the Opposition would do. Mr. Disraeli had dealt only in vague generalities. He would, he had said, secure the honour of England and the peace of Europe ; hut the house should know by what means, The motion was a vote of censure, and it was necessary that the, house should make up its mind whether it had confidence in the Opposition or not. A vote of censure for the pest was a vote of confidence for the future. In the consequences of the treaty of 1852, and in the Schleswig-Holstein question, we had, he thought, received a great lesson,—that it was oar business to make the rule of non-intervention the guide of our foreign policy, The time had come to replace that meddling,dishonest sys tem of apparent intervention, but real non-intervention, by an honest, a dignified, and an open system of non-interven tion. Mr. B. JOHNSTONE, after replying to the speeches of the Chanceilor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate on the previous evening, complained of the mystery in which the policy of the Government had been enveloped during the late transactions. He did not defend the con duct of the German Powers, he said, which had been marked by overbearing violence; but what the Government ought to have done two years ago was to come to a distinct conclusion as to whether this country should interfere or not. Instead of that they had adopted a mysterious policy, marked by a tissue of blunders, and the house, he thought, was bound to record a solemn protest against the manner in which our foreign policy had been conducted. Lord H. VANE observed that the Government had been blamed for recommending certain c aicessions to be made by Denmark, whereas he was of opinion that those concessions would have placed her in a better position H 3 could find no proof of any hopes of assistance to Denmark held out from this country. Our office had been that of a muliator, and after the refusal of France, which was not unnatural, all we could do was to remonstrate. He did not blame the Opp sition for their motion, but they had not declared what would be their policy. The Government bad done all they were called upon to do, and although they had not been successful, he did not see that we had suffered any humili,tion. Mr. LIDDELL, in supporting the motion, observed that the great argument of the other side was that the Opposition had no poll y ; but it had been asserted by them on another occasion, that it was not the function of an Opposi • ►,ion to declare their policy. That the policy of the Go vernment was that of interference was, he considered, proved by the papers, and he pointed out the evils which had been TIDE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1864, caused by foreign interference in the Dano-Germanic quar rel, which, while it irritated Germany, had rendered Den mark obstinate and more determined to resist. Mischief, he said, had resulted from foreign interference in the Con ference, where the question of the frontier would have been settled but for the interference of the neutral Powers. Lord R. MONTAGU maintained that the motion did not recommend a war policy. The policy of the Opposition was one of non-interference; that of the Government was a policy of meddling with the affairs of other nations, and this was the reason why the name of England was exe crated, as he knew it was, abroad. Mr WHALLEY opposed the motion. Mr ROE BUCK—Sii. I will endeavour to recall the house to the subject under discussion. I must say I almost feel a terror in approaching this great subject, because I feel that every word of common sense uttered in this house may find an echo outside, and perhaps lead to terrible conseqtences. But amid the multitude of words that ira't'e been published on this matter I have felt that there was a very small quan tity of truth. The Conference has met together, a great ceremony has been performed, and men appeared to wear a mask—a mask which was so smiling that men have seemed to wear the same over a smile of courtesy, while deadly hatred was at the heart of most of those who met together. Men seem to shrink from touching the real matter in hand. I can understand the motion of the right hon. gentleman. It is a motion directed against the Government. The real meaning of it is, " Get you out, and we will come in." (Hear, hear.) A very natural motion to make. Ido not find fault with it, though I do not think much of the wis dom of the proceeding. (Hear, hear.) But still I ask the house whether the real question has been put before it. The hon. member for Rochdale came very near it, but even he seemed to shrink from the real matter in dispute. We are all wonderfully cautious in speaking ill of our political op ponents, and the real culprits on this occasion seemed to escape animadversion. I thoroughly understand the re sponsibilities of my present position. I have not the respon sibility of an official in the matter, but merely that of a mem ber of the house. I believe I shall act up to the responsibility best by telling what I believe to be the truth in the matter. What is the debate about ? First and foremost I would state the parties I conceive to be concerned in the matter. I conceive them to be five in number. First of all, Denmark; next, the people of the small German States ; next, the Princes of those States ; next, Prussia ; next, Austria. I leave out of consideration Holstein, Schleswig, and the Duke of Augustenburg, because I believe they are merely pretexts in the matter. The real question is this—the people of the small States of Germany have gone mad—(cheers)—upon the feeling of nationality; the people of Denmark, with the Ring at their head, have en deavoured to maintain what I will term the doctrine of empire. They have endeavoured to hold togeth r a nation composed of separate peoples. The people of the smaller States of Germany have been impelled by the principle—a very mischievous one—the principle of nationalities, to in vade the Danish kingdom. Under the influence of these cliques, the Princes, fearing that their people might turn against them, have been glad to divert the feelings and wishes of their people into a channel that would affect their own power. Then comes Prussia, and she has three sepa rate objects in view. First, a wish to obtain territorial aggrandisement—she wishes to get a port in the Baltic ; and next she wishes to divert the consideration of her people from their own internal matters—(cheers)—and thirdly, to fight for what they called, talking Greek, hegemony, that is, the headship of Germany; and these three are the objects of the Prussian Government. On the other hand, Austria, fighting for the headship of Germany, sees Prussia going on her course of political aggrandisement, She feels she cannot allow Prussia to undertake that course without fol lowing, and she enters also into the contest. Now, the character of Prussia is a precious compound—a compound of the pedagogue, the drill-sergeant, and the highwayman. (Cheers and laughter.) That has been her character from the beginning ; they have been robbers from the beginning, and they are only acting up to their beginning. And they are endeavouring to acquire from weak Denmark that port on the Baltic which shall one day or other raise up what they call a German navy. Some months ago, when at Vienna, I talked with an illustrious states. man on this matter of Denmark. I raid to him, "How can your Austrian Ministers take the lead in' this crusade for nationalities ? Have you no consideration of Hungary, of Transylvania, of Bohemia, and Italy?" He said—" I feel as you, but the Germans have gone mad. I will tell a saying we have in Germany*, " When a Frenchman goes mad, he becomes mischievous—when a German goes mad, he becomes silly." I bowed to him and said, " Sir, on this occasion I think the Germans have co mbined both charac ters. The real matter ie this, that Prussia and Austria and the other States of Germany interfered in the internal matters of an independent nation. And it is all very well for gentlemen here, who take up what they call the Ger man side of the question, to talk about the oppression of Holstein and Schleswig; but I want to know if there be a kingdom in Europe that is not composed of different, not to say hostile, nationalities. Look at our own country. (Hear, hear, and oh.) We conquered . Wales, and Welshmen hates England now. (Oh.) It is quite true. (Oh, and laughter ) We conquered Ireland, and we have injured Ireland almost from that lime till 1830. And let me say, with all courtesy to hon. gentlemen who come from that country, that Ire lend hates us now. And if we were to adopt what the Em peror of the French wants us to adopt, we should be turned out of Ireland to-morrow. What is the rule for ourselves I want to be the rule of others. When Napoleon interfered with Irish people I want to know what words there were that were strong enough to express our indignation; and did he not say that England oppressed Irelan !, and was it not true ? England has conquered Laud, has behaved ill in Ireland, and has been unjust to Ireland. And I want to know, what England would say if any ono interfered be tween her and Ireland because of her injustice. I assume for the moment that Denmark was Unjust to the Duchies. I assume it, but Ido not believe it. Denmark was an inde pendent nation, and what right had the German people to interfere ? I pu; it broadly. I say that as a great principle to interfere with the internal concerns of a nation is to mi litate against one of the greatest principles of the peace of this world I say that Germany, headed by Prussia and Austria, has done a great deed of wrong to interfere with nationalities, whatever may be the conduct o: Denmark to wards any portion of its people. You talk of nationalities. I ask where is the unity of Germany ? I want to know when a nationality was anything but a principle to separate a people. Look the world over, and if you find a nationa lity united, I give up the point. Look at the Germans — where is their unity ? Every State fighting against another, and the pretence of a Government b 3 a Diet. What is the meaning of that? Why do they not go to war over Stras burg ? Because they are afraid. And then there is their great feeling of Fatherland bursts forth, and they pour over the petty nation of Denmark, Do they say anything to Austria ? Do they dare say anything to Austria ? Sup posing the Emperor of Austria annihilated the constitution would the Diet of Frankfort dare say a word of disapproval? It is a farce—a mischievous farce—beginning in farce and ending in tragedy. (Cheers.) These are what I call the facts of the case. lam not now pretending to discuss what Denmark has done in Schleswig and Holstein. I believe that what Denmark intended to do, and what every wise nation would attempt to do, was to unite the several parts of her country into one, just as we overrun Scotland —not merely personally, but by the union of the people. And we got Ireland to do the same. Will any man toll me that the course pursued by Mr Pitt and his Government in the union of Ireland with our p eo pl e was done with the approbation of the Irish people ? Was there any appear ance of such a thing ? Were the people of Ireland con sulted ? And yet I hear people talk as if we had not done anything like the people of Denmark, w hi c h really gave a good constitution to Schleswig. You say that the King of Denmark endeavoured to change the language. 3r, There ar e silly If he did, I think he did very wisely, peo ple who wish to continue the language of Wales. (Oh, and a laugh.) But any wise man would say, l e t us pu t out the wonderful light, the Welsh language, if we can. If a people is to be homogeneous, one great means i s to ma k e their language the same. Therefore, Ido not bl ame the Government of Denmark for attempting to Ppread t h e Danish language over the whole area of Denmark. so far for the doings of Denmark. Then steps in Germany oug ht England to do ? , where she ought not to step in ; and now, I ask, what We are told we ought not t o i nterfere. I want to know if, in the history of Europe, fr om the time that Europe was a combination of nations -if it h as b ee n possible for us to isolate ourselves, and say, 'W e will ta k e n o care of what is passing ? 'We are here t o t a l k about it —l cannot speak of it in that farcical way —w e aro here to t a lk about it as statesmen ought to do. lam not go i n g to take my states manship from those whole o n l y () Wee, is merely to make money. Ido not think that a counting-h 011.90 it the best portico for a statesman, If we are to con sider what the communities of Europe are doing, I want to know if t h ere is a more dangerous thi ng f or us than to p-rmit a strong nation to interfere with the internal and domestic affairs of a weak nation. I knew it has been done, and done in spite of the good feelings of the people of E n gland. We have done many silly things, but I do not think we did a silly thing in preven t i ng Spain overru nnin g Portu g al. I say what has h a p lened in Wales may happen in Den mark, and that we have a r i ght to suppose that the nation ality of Denmark will not be overrun by-the greater nation ality of Germany, And rem em b er this, Denmark is only a part of the larger nationality of Scandinavia; and again, let me ask, in the multitude of nationalities in Europe, who will say which is to be the predominant? So much for what I believe was intended to be done by England. But now I come to the manner of the doing. (Hear, heat.)3 None of the words I have heard uttered are too strong to express my utter disapprobation of the manner in which our foreign policy has been conducted by Lord Russell. (Opposition cheers.) He seems to me to have mistaken his vocation ; he was intended for a schoolmaster, but fortune made him a statesman. (Much latOiter.) 2i is great object seems to have been to write le*nres to all Europe (hear, hear) ; but Europe very properly said, We don't intend to be lectured. (Hear, hear.) I believe there is no one feels that more than the noble lord at the lead of the Government. [Lord Pal merston expressed hi: dissent.] I knew the noble lord would shake his head-1 was quite sure of that. (Laughter.) Still it seems to me that Earl Russell is like the Old Man of the Sea upon the noble lerd's back. (Renewed laughter.) I have no doubt myself that if our foreign policy had been conducted according to the wishes of the noble lord we should not be in the position we are in now. (Cheers.) But • there are exigencies in all parties; there may be people who are disagreeable—still we can't get rid of them (laughter) ; and I believe that is precisely the present mind of the noble lord. (Renewed laughter.) The noble earl had been sent to another place, whore it was supposed he might retire froin power, and if that had been the case I am quite sure the noble earl would have found himself a very happy man, and I am equally sure that the country would have been happy too. (Laughter.) That is my opinion of the con duct of Earl Russell, (Hear, hear.) Then *e come to the motion of the right hon. gentleman. To support that motion it is not enough, for me to say that I find fault with you (pointing to the Treasury bench), I must have him. (Hear, hear.) Now I honestly say that, with all the faults of the present Administration; I Wottld bather have them than those who seek to supplant them. (Cheers upon the Ministerial bench.) I don't think that will be satisfactory to gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side; still such is my feeling, and such is the reason why I intend to vote fer thb noble lord opposite, (Ministerial theeis.) It is not because I believe his Government is the best that the country can afford, (An hon. member : " Roebuck.") Ido not think that interruption courteous—it is hardly fair, and therefore I pass it by. (A. laugh.) Ido not think the Government of the noble lord the best the country could form ; but I think it a better Government than the one that would take its place if this resolution were passed. I find fault with what they have done. I think they have come short of what they might have done in many things, both in their home policy and their foreign policy. But, with all their shortcomings, I prefer them. Sir, there is something more I wish to say on the subject. (Laughter, and ironical cries of " Hear, hear," cn the Opposition benches.) I think I have said enough to make my opinions plain. I don't be. lieve I please gentlemen oa this side—l don't believe I please gentlemen on the other side—of the house. Bat, with all that, I feel my country goes with me in what I have uttered. (Hear, hear.) I think many things might have been done which would have prevented bloodshed upon this occasion. I think if the noble lord had the power, as he has the wish—if he had taken a bold stand at first— he might have Vat an end to the arrogance and injustice of the German Powers. My notion is that if you had told the German people the moment they attacked Denmark they must expect England for a foe—if you had steadfastly acted upon that, and sent your fleet to the Baltic, yoit Would have had no more trouble with Germany. (Cheers.) You may talk about the effect of railroads; but 1 want to know, is there any people—and more especially the German people—who can maintain themselves without foreign commerce ? Our fleet would have swept from the sea the whole mercantile naVy of Germany. With that threat I believe they would have been wise in time, and would have abstained from that injustice which they have now perpetuated, and which they will long deplore„ Mr HORSMAN observed that the motion contained two propositions —one, that the policy of the Government had failed ; the second, that the failure had been so injurious to our national influence that the Government ought to be blamed. The first was admitted ; the facts, in his opinion, did not justify the second. The House, he contended, had acquiesced in the policy of the Government, it had even directed that policy. He insisted that, according to consti tutional principles, it was the duty of the House to scrutinize our foreign policy as much as a bill upon a domestic subject. By holding their peace the Opposition incurred a complicity in every act of the Government, and a responsibility fur the consequences. The policy of the Governteent was only ministerial, and if the country had been dishonoured it was not by the Ministry, but by Parliament. After alluding to the conduct of the Opposition upon the Polish question, he discussed the doctrine of non-interference in the domestic government and the internal arrangement of other notions, end to this construction of the phrase he gave his full and unqualified assent. But Mr Cobden's definition went a great deal turther,and he (MrHorsman) could not consent to place this country in a state of isolation and seclusion. He then con sidered the position of this country in relation to the Danish question, and condemned the policy adopted by the Go vernment as an injudicious and dangerous policy, which had plunged them into difficulties. The Treaty of 1852 was a bad measure, but the Government could not have repudiated it. They ought, however, to have proposed to the contracting Powers to annul it, and substitute a decla ration binding the parties to defend Denmark. Unfor tunately, they took their stand upon the treaty, and rashly plunged headlong into all the embarrassments of the ques tion ; our diplomacy was unskilful, and a stroke of Lord Russell's pen let loose an army of German fillibustera upon Denmark. He pursued the history of these transactions, pointing out, as he proceeded, what he regarded as the errors of our policy, but for which, he thought, the free soil of Denmark would never have been polluted by German troops. Then it was said the Conference had been a failure. Did not the Opposition know it would be a failure ? Would it not have been better to have denounced it at the time? But Mr. Disraeli not only did not originate a discussion upon the subject, but he would not allow of a discussion, but threatened to strangle a motion to raise a discussion by " the previous question." The Government, ho observed, had made mistakes, but their opponents had endorsed them ; co the parties were pretty much upon an equality. The motion bore upon the face of it two objects —to con demn the Government as much as possible, and to compli ment their opponents as little as possible. It affirmed no principle, it enunciated no policy. Ho was afraid the Go veratnent had established no claim to confidence ; but for the mistakes of a Government there was always an excuse. The Opposition had, however, done nothing • to prevent or remedy these mistakes, but endeavoured to use them as a steppingstone to power. Public policy did not require that at that critical moment the present Government should be displaced in order to make way for those who had shown more we tkness and less courage. Mr. S. IF ITZ GE D—Late as the hour is, I trust that the house, after the somewhat personal allusion which the right hon. gentleman has made to me, will permit me to address a few observations. I must confess that among the many remarkable speeches which I have heard the right hon. gentleman make the speech which he has delivered to night has been the most remarkable. (Opposition cheers.) For nearly two hours he has addressed the house, and I think until the concluding sentence of his speech there must have been members who were perfectly ignorant as to what the vote was which the right hon. gentleman was about to glove—(cheers)—because with singular impartiality, he first blamed the Government—he told them that their adminis tration was disastrous, that their conduct had humiliated England, and then he turned round to the Opposition and said " You have no responsibility, but you era j ust as b a d , and I have a s littl e con fid ence i n you." But if his speech was singular in this respect I think it was somewhat more singular in the very novel theory ho has offered to the house as to what in this country should be the conduct of foreign politics, because he has told us that in questions of foreign politics the office of Government was merely Minis terial—(Opposition cheers)—until the House of Commons were possessed of the facts with which the Government had to deal. In seeking thus to convert the House of Com mons into a foreign office, in seeking thus to transfer to this house the conduct of foreign affairs, I think the right hon. gentleman has shown (as the hon. and learned member for Sheffield did before him) what the effect of such a transfer would be. What, according to the hon. and learned gen tleman (Mr. Roebuck) is to be the nature of the diplomatic language of this country ? The hon. and learned gentle man tholight by transferring these great questions in this house we should conciliate foreign powers, and beat consult the dignity of this country; and he exemplified the theory by applying to other nations the term of highwaymen and, I think swindlers ; while the right hon. gentleman has said that one party with whom we have to deal were robbers, and the others hypocrites and filibusters. The right hon gentle.. man's theory of the administration of foreign politics is novel and unconstitutional, and I venture to think that the results of each an administration as he looked to see estab lished would be most unsatisfactory, and dangerous to the interests of the country. But before I come to deal with the question more directly before the house, I should like to put the right hon. gentleman right as to the statement he made in reference to the course pursued by hon. gentle men on this side of the house with reverence to the case of Poland last year. In the first place the right hon. gentle man says the course pursued by the Government was forced upon it by the Opposition. Is that so? The dates prove that the right hon. gentleman is wrong ; and 1 think the right hon. gentleman, in assuming to be the censor and mentor of the whole House of Commons (laughter and cheers), might as well make himself acquainted with the facts of the case before he offers such statements. (Cheers.) First as to dates. The discussion upon the motion of the hon. member for King's County took place on Feb. 27. Mr. 11ORSIVIAN—I said so. Mr. S. FITZGERALD— What was the date of Lord Russell's condemnation of Russia ? The 21st February. (Cheers) What was the date of that letter which has been so much complained of with reference to the conduct of Prussia ? It was the 18th February. What was the date of the despatch of Lord Russell asking for concert and har monious action with France ? It was the 27th February, the very date of the debate, (Opposition cbeers,) Now, when the right hon. gentleman again attempts to defend a Government upon the ground that a course of policy has been forced upon it by the Opposition, I hope he will take care to be more correct in his dates. The right hon. gen tleman is equally wrong as to CI() course pursued by the Opposition. He says that I was one of those who forced upon the Government that course of conduct which was afterwards so disastrous and unsuccessful. I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. I certainly spoke—and I Lope I shall never hold my tongue when I think I am called upon to speak in this house —my true and honest senti ments with reference to the case of Poland. I urged then strongly that the house should adopt the motion of my hen. iriend the member for King's County, be cause I thought it would be a way of avoiding war, and might prevent France from putt ing herself at the head of a great European movement in favour of Poland, and that it would lead to diplomatic action in concert with this country and Austria. But granting, then, that that was the position we took, is it because that is what we recom mended to the Government, the Opposition are to be re sponsible for the bungling and incapable manner in which they carried cut that policy ? What we find fault with the Government for is this, not that they expressed the honest sentiments of this country in favour of Poland, but that, after inducing France to act with the„ A , they used language more violent than that of France and more violent than that of Austria. (Cheers.) And then we have the an- nouncement by the Foreign Secretary that this violent lan guage was to go for nothing, and that England would never draw the sword fcr Poland. We do not find fault with the resolution on the part of the noble lord that this country ihould not draiV the sword for Voldnd ; but what we do find fault with is this—that he should have used language so violent and extravagant, and, having induced his allies to join him, that he should then paralyse them in the middle of the transaction by the announcement that England would not draW the sword for rebind. I will now pass that by and come to the question before the house. Sir, mitst confess that the debate has, in some respects, been an in structive debate. We have often known members denounce a government, and then afterwards to be found with and supporting them. But this is the first time we have been in a debate of this character. We have now been discuss ing this question for two nights, and, with the exception of the noble lord the member for Hastings, although there haVe been many members who haVe addressed us on both sides of the house, independently of official members and members of her Majesty's Government, no member has ventured to say one word in defence of the policy of the Government. On every hand there has been a chorus of condemnation, and it seems to me as if hon. members have tried to rival each other as to who could apply the strongest blame and censure to the Government. This we have known often in the case of those who are the regular supporters of Governments. The question is treated by the Government as one of confidence—that is the posi tion in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it, net as a question merely regarding the success of particular negotiations, or regarding the conduct of affairs in particular and difficult circumstances, but as a vote of want of confi dence in their foreign policy. Then what astonishes me is that it should not be those who are the regular supporter, of the Government, but those who call themselves indepen dent members, who often are the first to censure the Go vernment; and who now, when a question is brought for ward involving confidence in the Government,tuake speeches saying they have not the slightest confidence, that the Go vernment have disgraced and humiliated the country, and brought us to the point of war, and then, headed by the hon. member for Rochdale, notwithstanding all this, give a vote of confidence in the Government. (Cheers.) Well, I see opposite the hon. member for Bridgwater (Mr Kinglake), who assumes also, and justly, I believe d the position of an independent member. The hon. member for Bridgwater blames the resolution of my right hon. friend the member for Bucks as being remarkable for its reservation ; but the amendment of the hon. gentlemen is one of extreme reserve, because it seeks to pass by the whole transactions of the last few months, transactions with respect to vehicle the Conduct of the Government is challenged. The hon. member fai Rochdale says he shall not vote for the motion of my right bon, friend the member for Bucks, because he can adopt the words of the amendment of the hon. member for Bridgwater, and that those words announce peace—an object dear to all of us. But behind us is the member for Warwickshire, and that hon. gentleman says he will vote against the resolution of my right hon. friend—not on the ground of peace, but because the noble lord has left open the door of escape from war. Sir, of all the speeches delivered in this debate none I think has been more remarkable than the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) I must confess that nine times out of ten when that right hon. gentleman addresses the house he fairly puzzles me. (Laughter.) When the right hon. gentle • man addresses us on commercial subjects all must admit his lucidity; but into other subjects, foreign or domestic, the right hon. gentleman introduces so much subtlety, and draws such fine distinctions, that I hardly know whether he deceives himself by his ingenious fallacies or intends to deceive others. (Cheers.) A remarkable instance of this faculty occurred in the speech of the right hon. gentleman last night ; for, in language more forcible than courteous— (hear, hear)—he took exception to my right hon. friend the member for Bucks, because, as he said, he made quotations which were not fair. (Hear, hear, and counter cheers, and hear from Mr Layard.) The hon. member for Southwark (Mr Layard) endorses that view, and he not only endorses it, but the temper and style of the speech in which it was conveyed. (Cheers.) Then the right hen. gentleman at tempted to explain away the famous words of the noble lord at the head of the Government, which he uttered in reply to a question from me at the end of last July. The right hon. gentleman said that at that time France and Russia were in accord with us, and that if Denmark were attacked she would not stand alone, and that the right hon. gentleman meant to say that France and Russia held the same senti ments with the English Government. Does the hon. mem ber for Southwark, as a candid man—(cheers) —mean to say for a moment that that is the sense in which those words were used ? ((sheers, cries of " Yes," and counter cheers.) If these words were placed before any number of plain-spoken, plain-thinking Englishmen, I will undertake to say that they would not interpret them in the non natural sense. I would much rather believe that they were spoken by the noble lord in that spirit which has always distinguished him—in a spirit of generosity for the weak beaten down by the strong, and that they could only be sub verted by events over which he had no control. The right hon. gentleman accused my right hon. friend of omitting that part of the despatch in which M. Drouyn de Lhuys said that in declining the proposal of England no indiffer ence was felt for the cause of Denmark. The right hon. gentleman does not see that that makes the case much stronger against the Government—(hear, hoar)—because M. Drouyn de Lhuys said that in declining the proposal England must not think that he disagreed with her, but that he declined because in the case of Poland we had led the Emperor into difficulty incompatible with his position with Europe. I say therefore that my right hon. friend quoted the despatch fairly, and that what he left out would have told with greater force against the Government. (Cheers.) The right hon, gentleman also sa;d that this country want along cordially with the neutral Powers, and held exactly the same position with respect to giving notice to Denmark that she must not expect material assistance; but the despatch the right hon. gentleman quoted in confir mation did not bear him out in his assertion, because from that despatch of Lord Wodehouse it appeared that France said she would not give material assistance ; but the Eng lish Government said that it Denmark did not follow her advice she should not be assisted. There are several other points on which the right hon. gentleman misquoted my right hon. friend, but at this hour it would be irksome were I to go over them. But one I desire to point out. Through out the whole course of his speech the right hon. gentle man, though he admitted that the Government had failed, and had given disastrous advice, said the Government were only partly to blame, as they had acted in common with the other neutral Powers. (Hoar, hear.) Was that the case. Was our position towards Denmark the same as that of France or Austria ? Did Prince Gortschakoff or M. Drouyn de Lhuys ever tell Denmark that she would not stand alone? (Hear, hear.) Did they ever make such a premise as that made by Lord Wodehouse at Copenhagen, and say that probably other countries would interfere. No. During the Conference, though the neutral Powers might assent to the various proposals, it was England who made them, and it is idle to throw the responsibility on the neutral Powers. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that the proposal made by Earl Russell at the Conference was in every respect the proposal of the neutral Powers. That was not the ease.' Two communications had passed be tween the neutral powers on the subject, but when the line of the Schlei and the Dannewerke was proposed, Russia refused its assent, and would have preferred the line of the Eider. As regards the second proposal, I do not think that any one who has read the statement of the Danish Minister made in his place, and the statement of Earl Russell made in his place, can look back at the proceedings of the pleni potentiaries at the Conference without feeling that a gross breach of faith had been committed, and the Danish pleni potentiaries were brought into a dangerous position. According to the statement of the noble earl, the Danish plenipotentiaries informed him that they were willing to accept the line of the Schlei and the Dannewerke without modification, but that they were not willing to accede to a prolongation of the suspension of hostilities, unless Earl Russell undertook on the part of the English Government that he would not himself propose nor support any other I frontier line. How was that engagement evaded ? The noble lord says that what he proposed was that somebody else should form that line. I ask if that is in the spirit of the engagement entered into with the Danish plenipoten tiaries. (Hear, hear.) The Conference broke up. Who was to blame but the German powers who refused to accept the line proposed. The Government wished to be able to say that they could not assist the Danes, owing to their refusal of the line, when the truth was the British Govern ment had pledged themselves not to support any other line. It was not agreed to by Russia, and, therefore, the right hon. gentleman's statement that the other neutral Powers were as much to blame as ourselves, is totally devoid of foundation. (Hear) The right hon. gentleman has made curious objections to the resolution of my right hon. friend. He calls it unpatriotic, and the moment he said so the gen • tleman on the benches behind him cheered. In the depth of their abasement they seemed glad to find an excuse which would speak to English hearts. (Hear, hear.) I have yet to learn that an assertion in this house that the course of a Minister has lessened our influence can be truly called unpatriotic. In the great and glo rious days of Parliament much stronger expressions were used without challenge. The resolution not only declares that the influence of the country has been lessened ; but that is not the object of the resolution. It calls on Parlia ment to censure and condemn those who had reduced it to u e c o t n o s f i d t h e r o e s d e h in t i r ° a ll th th er e ctomibde w s uhcoh object ee t position t o s u . h C h a eers. ) resolutionln m yought g p unpatriotic. (Hear.) The amendment of the hon. member for Bridgwater implies that the house should pass over in silence the conduct of Ministers. (Hear.) When the motion was first brought forward a number of friends on the other side said it would not be carried; but if it was it would not do to go to the country upon it, as it would fix on this side a desire for war, and that they on the other side would get credit for wishing for peace. I assured them that when the discussion came on they would not find it easy to say so. I said it was not true. I also said, if their my was to be " Palmerston and Peace," that I did not think the noble lord would thank them for coupling his name with that word. (Hear.) I want to know whether you are a peace Government. I know that on several occasions you have been inviting other countries to join you in war. (Cheers and laughter,) Is that a mark of a peace Government ? (Cheers.) In thecourse of the discussion the Foreign Minis• ter had stated that he had renewed the application to the Government of trance; and he (Mr. Fitzgerald) heard the noble lord say that within 24 hours he had recei7ed the reasons of the French Government fief not going to ware (Hear.) But more : in the whole of the discussions what had been the excuse of the Government for not going to war? Not thet they loved peace, not that they had never treedie tated war, but that they dared not go to war. (Hear, hear.) They said that they had tried to induce foreign Powers to go to war with them, but that they would halve gone to war if they could have ebtained suppoit, (sea* hear.) Then, were the Government entitled to calf theme' selves a peace Government ? Could they fix upon the oppos tion the character of being a war opposition ? What was the complaint of the last speaker / 'that they eonld get nothing out of the opposition with regard to their policy-- not that they would have encouraged war. (Healey What was there that would justify the imputation on the Censer'' , native side of the house of being more anxious for war than those who sat on the Ministerial side ? (Hear.) The hon. member for Bradford said he had listened with the greatest pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Huntingdon and that of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. But how did the hon. member for Bradford argue ? He said he agreed with every syllable that fell from the noble member for King's Lynn, except one phrase of two words. That was the only reason given by the hon. member for Bradford for fixing on the opposition a war policy. This was not an accurate statement. He had not heard a single member of the house, nor had he heard a private individual assert that England was bound by treaty to defend Den mark. Therefore, neither did the Government deserve the character of a peace Government, nor did the opposition deserve the character of et war opposition. It had been said that the opposition ought to have pointed out a policy. This had been sufficiently answered. It was not the duty of the Government, and it never had been the practice for the opposition to indicate the line of policy they intended to adopt if they succeeded to power. Weeks or months might elapse before they would be in possession of the informa tion which alone could enable them to form an opinion even of the past policy of the Government; it was, therefore, impossible to indicate what would be the future policy of the new Government. He believed that the opposition had strictly performed their duty in challenging the verdict of the house on the conduct of the Government, and he be lieved that nine members oat of ten cordially agreed in the words of his right hon. friend's resolution. But of this he was sure, that it the hustings were to be appealed to, as was threatened, the constituents would believe that the Opposi tion had performed their duty in challenging the verdict of the House of Commons and asking their answer to the question whether the policy of Ministers had not " lowered the jtts; influence of this country in the counsels of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities of peace." (Cheers,) Mr B. 0 StORNE and Mr LAYARD both rose to move the adjournment of the debate. The motion was carried ; and it is understood that Mr Layard has caught the " Speaker's eye," and that he will consequently resume the debate on Thursday, PETTY OFFENCES LAW AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a second time. STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered. INDIA STOCKS TRANSFER AMENDMENT BILL. This bill passed through committee, PILOTAGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL This bill was read a second time. DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (AMENDMENT) BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES (VOTING PAPERS) BILL. This bill passed through committee. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. ➢lr BERKELEY obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Poisoned Grain, &c,, Prohibition Aot, 1863. Mr BARING obtained leave to bring in a bill for con• tinning various expiring acts. The house then adjourned. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL-TUESDAY. There was a fair attendance of town dealers at market to-day, but not many country millers. Wheat met with a good deal of inquiry, chiefly on speculation, but holders being Extremely firm, rather a limited business was done. Prices may be quoted fully 2d higher than on Tuesday. Oats and oatmeal held for an advance of id per 451 b and 6d per load, but a slow sale. Egyptian beans were scarce, and 3s per qr advance on last Tuesday's prices. P eas also rather dearer. Sack flour in good demand, and French brought 6d to is over last week. Barrel flour the same. In Indian corn there was a fair business passing at im proving values, American bringing 30s 6d to 30s 9d per 4801 b. SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. At our market to-day there was a small supply of wheat and other, grain, and the trade was dull, but prices fully as dear. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...lss Od to 16s 6d ) White 11 ...17s Od to 19s Od New red 1 ..15s Od to 168 Od New white „ 11 , ..168 6d to 18s 6,i Beans 11 11 ... 14s 6d to los 6d Peas, per qr 4os Od to 44s Od Grinding barley, per qr 29s Od to 30s 0:I Malting ditto, „ 32s Od to 35s Od Oats 11 22s Od to 26s Od Flour, is 4d to is 8d per 14 lb. MELTON MOWBRAY—TuEsDAL A moderate business was done in English wheat to-day. The following were the currencies :—New white wheat, 44s Od to 48s Od ; new red, 38s Od to 45s per 36 stone ; beans, 43s to 43s for old ; new sorts, 36s to 39s per 38 st. ; barley, 32s to 35s for malting, and 28s to 30s per qr, for grinding; new oats, 20s to 24s Od per 24 stone; old, 29s to 295. LEEDS-TUESDAY. There were moderate arrivals of fresh grain this morn ing. We had a fair consumptive demand for good wheats, at last week's rates. Barley nominal. Oats, beans, and peas were unaltered. Averages—July 4—Wheat 418 10d per qr. —Barley —s Od -- --- —Beans 36s 8d ..- - —Peas 32s Hid —Oats ..22s 7cl BRISTOL —TUESDAY. The attendance of buyers to-day was moderate, but owing to the splendid weather little business was doing. Foreign wheat, however, being light in stock, maintained full prices ; while oats, barley, and peas were held also at former rates, GREAT ROBBERY.—Yesterday a great robbery was committed in the premises of Messrs Johnston, the chronometer makers and jewellers, carrying on business at 54, Threadneedle-street. It seems that one of the clerks, on attempting to enter the office, found that it had been opened by a side door, that a large sheet of plate -glass had been broken, and that goods, consisting of jewels, ix., worth £4,000, had been taken away. The police were at once called in, when it was found that a desperate but un successful attempt had been made to force one of Tann's fireproof safes containing no less than £12,000 worth of jewels and watches. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills—Momentous Ine qulrp.—Surrounded as we are by exciting causes of disease, it becomes our duty to seek some means of expelling hn purities from the body, or rendering them harmless. Pro fessor Holloway has discovered a medicine capable of effecting this all-important point, and has generously placed it within the reach of the poorest. His pills guard the constituents of the blood, which, when contaminated or destroyed, permit fevers, inflammations, and other mala dies to run riot through and undermine the system, or consign their victims to untimely tombs. In malarious districts and unhealthy towns , t h ese p i lls, after silently proving themselves the best protectors against level's, dm, have, within the last few years, been adopted by the pro fession and public. Births. CA.STLEROSSE.—On the 3d inst., at 63, Eaton-place, the Viscountess Castlerosse, of a BOIL CARGILL.—On the 4th inst., the wife of William Walter C orn.argill, Esq., M.P ., prematurely, of a daughter, still. b FIELD.—On the 4th inst., the Lady Georgiana Field, of a 6011. Marriages. RENT—ARMYTAGE—On the 30th ult., at the Cathedral, Exeter, by tne Rev. Canon Woollcombe, Lieutenant Hunter Rent, R.N., of H.M.S. St. George, Falmouth, youngest son of Captain Henry Kent, R.N., to Annie Force, second daughter of John Carr Armytage, Esq., of Barnsbury, London, and niece of Edwin Force, Esq., of Exeter, solicitor. MARSII—CALDECOT.—On the 2d inst., at Clevedon, So merset, Captain E, N. Marsh, H.M.'s Indian Amy, to Louisa Sarah Eliz4belb, youngest daughter of Major Calaecot, of Holton Hall, Lincolnshire. WATSON—PETERS —On the sth inst., at Saint George's. Hanover-square, Jonathan E. Watson, Esq., of Royal Exchange, and Kilturn, to Lydia M. Pemberton, elder daughter of the late Thomas Peters,Eisq., of the Grange, Kilburn, Middlest'x. Deaths. M.D., aged 72. BOWIE.—On the 2d inst., a t Bath, William Bowie, Esq., CHRISTTAN.—On the 2d inst., at Folkestone, Francis Christian, of Birmingham, aged 46. FINCH.—On the Ist inst., Misc Susan Finch', of Broom fiela, &sex. aged 79, HAY.—On the 3d i ns t . , a t 4 , Lower Belgrave-street, Lon don, Lieut.. Gene ra l Charles Murray Hay, Colonel of the 91st Regt., aged 62. MAYHEw.—Oa the 4th inst., at Sydney House, Kew. bridge, Pauline, second daughter of Alfred Mayhew, Esq., aged 26. NETTLESHIP.—On the 4th inst., at East Sheen, Surrey, Thomas Nettleship, Esq., aged 57. London : PrIIAZed and Prb!ialied by WILLIAM ANDRETV S. of No. 112, Str an d , P r i nter , at l'nE SUN Office No. 112, Strand, n the Precinct of the 3avoy, ,n the Q0m:7,1 y ct Alititilcsex.—Nytune a day, July. 6, 18e4.